How do you know the organization, and the op-ed, weren’t created by LawMedia Group at the behest of some well-funded clients? If they did their jobs right, you don’t know.

Some of them have left digital fingerprints here and there, though, says Declan McCullagh, in a blockbuster of a report exposing the intellectual whoredom offered for various important issues. Shortly after Microsoft hired LawMedia, for example, legislators, national agencies, and news outlets received pointed complaints from coalitions of farmers, rural voters, and geeky Latinos about how Google’s advertising deal with Yahoo would wreck everything.

[...]

Don’t call them a PR firm or a lobbying firm though, Law Media – which has a ton of lawyers working for them too—is a “public affairs firm” specializing in producing “remarkable coalitions” for anything one might need a coalition for.

LMG’s clients include Comcast, which opposes net neutrality, and Microsoft, which hired LMG in an attempt to block a Google-Yahoo advertising deal. Another strange aspect of King’s anti-net neutrality column is that “portions are identical to a Rainbow Push coalition statement attributed to the Rev. Jesse Jackson and dated three months before.” A source told CNET News that “LMG has a relationship with Jackson that includes ghost-written articles on behalf of corporate clients.”

Astroturf coalitions

In May 2008, Microsoft retained LMG on what was reportedly a “six-figure monthly retainer,” to oppose a Google-Yahoo advertising deal. “Immediately afterward, anti-Google coalitions of dubious provenance–an LMG specialty–sprouted. The American Corn Growers Association, the League of Rural Voters, and a group called the Latinos in Information Sciences and Technology Association (LISTA) sent a letter to the Justice Department asking it to investigate Google’s ‘search monopoly.’ Prior to that time, those groups had no history of aggressive anti-Google advocacy,” reported CNET News.

Microsoft also used such tricks against the DoubleClick acquisition and against YouTube when it encouraged publishers to sue. Never ever forget about lawsuits by proxy [1, 2, 3] and bribery or blackmail for pressure [1, 2].

“LMG is one of several firms we work with in D.C.,” Microsoft spokesman Jack Evans said. “It’s no secret that we oppose the Google-Yahoo deal and that there’s been a great deal of opposition to it by advertisers, publishers, consumers, and legal experts.” Evans points out that Google has hired a constellation of D.C. lobbyists and public relations groups to tell its side of the story.

Microsoft hired LMG in early May for what a source with knowledge of the situation described as a six-figure monthly retainer.

Share this post:These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.

A Single Comment

It’s not just PR companies but also individuals apparently independent that suddenly just start shilling for them; case in point: the OOXML debacle. Look around and what you see. Very well place and apparently independent shills.

What Else is New

The latest tactics of the patent microcosm are just about as distasteful as last month's (or last year's), with focus shifting to the courts and few broadly-misinterpreted patent cases (mainly Finjan, Berkheimer, and Aatrix)

The fightback against Section 101 and the US Supreme Court (notably Alice) seems to concentrate on old and new buzzwords, such as "Software as a Medical Device" ("SaMD") or "Fourth Industrial Revolution" ("4IR"), which the EPO recently paid European media to spread and promote

Infomercials are still dominant among news about patents, in effect drowning out the signal (real journalism) and instead pushing agenda that is detached from reality, pertinent facts, objective assessment, public interest and so on

A discussion about the infamous abundance of patent cases in the Eastern District of Texas (TXED/EDTX) and what this will mean for businesses that have branches or any form of operations there (making them subjected to lawsuits in that district even after TC Heartland)

The patent microcosm is so eager to stop the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) that it's supporting sham deals (or "scams") and exploits/distorts the voice of the new USPTO Director to come up with PTAB-hostile catchphrases

Judgmental patent maximalists are still respecting high courts only when it suits them; whenever the outcome is not desirable they're willing to attack the legitimacy of the courts and the competence of judges, even resorting to racist ad hominem attacks if necessary

With or without the Unified Patent Court (UPC), which is the wet dream of patent trolls and their legal representatives, the EPO's terrible policies have landed a lot of low-quality patents on the hands of patent trolls (many of which operate through city-states that exist for tax evasion -- a fiscal environment ripe for shells)

The money-obsessed, money-printing patent office, where the assembly line mentality has been adopted and patent-printing management is in charge, is devaluing or diluting the pool of European Patents, more so with restrictions (monetary barriers) to challenging bad patents

he media in Europe continues to be largely apathetic towards the EPO crisis, instead relaying a bunch of press releases and doctored figures from the EPO; only blogs that closely follow EPO scandals bothered mentioning the new petition

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) sees the number of filings up to an almost all-time high and efforts to undermine PTAB are failing pretty badly -- a trend which will be further cemented quite soon when the US Supreme Court (quite likely) backs the processes of PTAB

The EPO is trying very hard to silence not only the union but also staff representatives; it's evidently worried that the lies told by Team Battistelli will be refuted and morale be affected by reality

Suspicions that Iancu might destroy the integrity of the Office for the sake of the litigation ‘industry’ may be further reaffirmed by the approach towards patent maximalists from IAM, who also participated in the shaming of his predecessor, Michelle Lee, and promoted a disgraced judge (and friend of patent trolls) for her then-vacant role